The Court of Appeal (CoA) refused to hear appeals that were qualified as academic appeals.
Background:
The applications related to judicial reviews of decisions by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) concerning the eligibility of Afghan nationals under the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP). The appeals related to judicial review claims by applicants were found ineligible under category 4 ARAP. The High Court quashed the MoD's decisions, substituting its own findings of eligibility, which led to the appeals by the Secretaries of State.
“Both the respondents contended that the appeals raised no live issues of wider importance, particularly in the light of the decision of the CoA in LND1, which has determined the first ground of appeal, the only issue that could be so described. The other two grounds of appeal are nothing more than complaints about how the policy was to be applied to the facts and circumstances of these individual cases, which cannot be carried over to other cases where the evidence and the facts will be different.”
Decision:
The CoA refused permission to appeal, deeming it academic, despite the applications raising issues of a wider remit. The first ground of appeal for each case is that the Lower Court was wrong to conflate Conditions 1 and 2 of Category 4. The Court noted that the interpretation of the ARAP policy and its conditions had been definitively determined by the CoA in LND1 and that “lower courts, tribunals and decision-takers are bound to follow and apply.” It recognised that although Lower Court judges conflated conditions 1 and 2 of the test for ARAP applications and substituted their own decisions, there was no point of wider public importance to be addressed. The Court reiterated the separation of those conditions as distinct requirements following LND1.
Lady Justice Andrews acknowledged that the LND1 judgement provided the relevant guidance and there was no evidence of any widespread misapplication of the LND1 guidance since that ruling. As the Judge noted, “The appellants had adduced no evidence that in the 9 months or so which had elapsed between the decision in LND1 and the hearing of this application, there had been any such misunderstanding or misapplication of the policy, or a failure by decision-takers or by judges in the Administrative Court to apply the correct approach as set out in that case.”
Implications:
This decision reiterates the precedent set in LND1 regarding the interpretation of eligibility conditions under the ARAP. It highlights the importance of adhering to established precedents. The Court also made its unwillingness to rule on academic appeal very clear as, if a case has been decided previously providing sufficient guidelines, unless there is proof of misinterpretation or misunderstanding, the courts are not willing to hear a case raising similar concerns. Any new case must thus address points of wider public importance. This approach ensures consistency and predictability in the application of ARAP.
Finally, it makes it clear that courts should refrain from substituting their judgements for administrative decisions without a clear statutory basis.
